This week I had a conversation with an early-stage founder who’s building software for micro SMBs. After being at it for several years, he’s finally hit product–market fit. He’s doing over $1m in annual recurring revenue, is cash-flow break even, and wants to raise from VC firms to accelerate growth.

As we chatted, he told me that he’s made it to several final meetings with VC firms where he presents to the entire partnership. They love the product, but they don’t understand how the go-to-market will work for micro SMBs or how big the market opportunity is. So, they pass.

This conversation reminded me of a post I wrote a few months ago (see here). There’s no tried-and-true playbook for selling to micro SMBs like there is for enterprise SaaS, so lots of people avoid it. They don’t understand how big the market is or how to find potential customers.

To me, it’s an obvious white space that people—even some VC firms—are overlooking. And to this founder, the opportunity is crystal clear. He’s dumbfounded that forward-thinking investors don’t get it.

Micro SMBs is an overlooked and great market to go after. The entrepreneurs who get it now will end up building massive businesses with diversified and loyal customer bases. By the time others realize how big this opportunity is, these early entrepreneurs will have a first-mover advantage that will be hard to compete with.

I’m rooting for this founder. He finally found one firm whose people get it. They’ve agreed to be the lead and write a large check in his fundraising round. He’s on his way!

So, Figma finally had its much-anticipated IPO this week. In 2022, I shared that Adobe offered to buy it for $20 billion, but the deal was canceled because regulators wouldn’t approve it. This week, the company began trading on the NYSE.

The company sold shares at $33 a share. But when the stock began trading, it opened at $85 per share, or a $50 billion market capitalization (valuation). As of the writing of this post, the stock is at $122 and the company has a market cap of almost $60 billion.

For more details on the IPO and the above stats, see here.

Time will tell how the stock performs, but so far, the Adobe deal falling through has worked out well for Figma employees and investors. According to Bloomberg (see here), Index Ventures’ stake is worth over $7 billion, Greylock Partners’ stake is worth about $6.75 billion, Kleiner Perkins’s stake is worth about $6.05 billion, and Sequoia Capital’s stake is worth about $3.75 billion. Returns will depend on when, how much, and at what valuation each firm invested, but it appears that all have done well on this investment . . . so far.

In 2022, I shared that Figma was being acquired by Adobe for $20 billion (see here). A year later, the acquisition was called off because regulators wouldn’t approve the deal (see here), but it wasn’t all bad for Figma—it walked away with a $1 billion breakup fee for its troubles. Well, Figma is back in the news. According to Bloomberg, Figma is targeting an IPO this summer (see here).

Bloomberg says that Figma generated $821 million in revenue for the 12 months ending March 31 (a 49% growth rate) and is cash-flow positive. I haven’t confirmed these figures, but if they’re true, those would be amazing metrics. The devil is always in the details, and many times people don’t really understand a company’s financials, so I want to investigate for myself. I found a copy of Figma’s SEC S-1 registration statement (see here). I’m looking forward to digging into it to understand this company better, given that I know many entrepreneurs who love its product.

I’ve been seeing more IPO announcements recently. I had a gut feeling that IPO activity has increased materially, but I hadn’t looked at the data to confirm. In fact, I haven’t looked at the data since my last update in March 2025 (see here), so today I did. Here are the updated IPO stats through July 2, 2025:

• 2025: 175

Here’s the 2025 breakdown by month:

• January: 28
• February: 28
• March: 19
• April: 32
• May: 34
• June: 25
• July: 9 (so far)

For comparison, here are previous years’ IPO stats:

• 2024: 225
• 2023: 154
• 2022: 181
• 2021: 1,035
• 2020: 480
• 2019: 232

IPO activity picked up after March. At this rate, we’ll exceed 2019, which was pre-COVID and pre-ZIRP. We’re on track to have the most IPOs since interest rates rose rapidly in 2022.

We still have six months left in the year, and anything can happen. If the Q2 taught me anything, it’s that curveballs can come at any time (e.g., April tariffs). But I suspect lots of technology CEOs and their VC investors are watching the IPO stats and strongly considering going public while the window is open and public market investors are receptive to buying shares in technology companies.

If you want to see the IPO stats—recent or historical—try here (where I get my IPO data).

A few days ago, I posted about the Los Angeles Lakers being sold for $10 billion (see here). The team was bought in 1965 for $5.175 million by Jack Kent Cooke (see here). What a crazy increase in value: $5.175 million to $10 billion over 60 years. Looking at the average rate of growth in team value per year, or compound annual growth rate (CAGR), it’s roughly 13.5%—over 60 years.

I wanted to see how this compares to the returns of great investors. The easiest comparative is Warren Buffett, since he began investing professionally in the 1950s and just retired. According to CNBC, Buffett took over Berkshire in 1965, and from then through the end of 2024, Berkshire shares rose 5,502,284%. CNBC says that equates that to a CAGR of 19.9%. See the details here.

So, owning the Lakers turned $5.175 million into $10 billion, and that was amazing, but investing with Buffett in Berkshire would have far outpaced that, assuming you invested $5.175 million and held the entire time.

Using a reverse CAGR calculator (see here), if you invested $5.175 million in 1965 and got Buffett’s 19.9% CAGR, you’d have $277.3 billion by the end of 2024.

Ten billion dollars and $277.3 billion. That’s the difference between compounding at 13.5% and compounding at 19.9% over 60 years. That 6.4 percentage-point difference is a $267.3 billion difference!

This week, it was announced that the Buss family is selling a majority ownership in the Los Angeles Lakers at a $10 billion valuation. That’s a huge sum for a sports franchise and reportedly the richest deal for a sports team in history (see here).

When I read the headline, I immediately thought about Jack Kent Cooke and Adrian Havill’s biography of him, The Last Mogul. Cooke built a fortune in newspapers and radio in Canada working alongside Roy Thomson (think Thomson Reuters), whose family is now the wealthiest family in Canada. Cooke then moved to L.A. and purchased the Lakers in 1965. He paid what was then a record price of $5.17 million. In 1966, he spent $17 million building the famous Forum in L.A. so the Lakers and the Kings, the NHL hockey team he also owned, could play in the same arena.

Jack signed Wilt Chamberlain to the Lakers. He traded for Kareem Abdul Jabbar. And he drafted Earvin “Magic” Johnson in 1979. The Lakers won a championship under Jack and were on their way to dominating the 1980s.

But Jack ended up getting divorced and, as a result, selling the Forum, the Kings, the Lakers, and his ranch to Jerry Buss in June 1979 for $67 million. Forty-six years later, the Buss family is selling the Lakers for $10 billion.

It’s wild to think about how the valuation of the Lakers has skyrocketed. In 60 years, the team has gone from being worth a little over $5 million to being worth $10 billion. That’s a roughly 13.5% compound annual growth rate—a striking example of the power of compounding (another example here).

If you’re interested in reading more about Jack, Havill’s biography is great. I also posted a series of posts about what I learned from the book. The Lakers deals are specifically covered here and here.

I enjoy learning about venture capital firms, and First Round Capital is one I kept tabs on. Its investments in Roblox and Uber were what originally sparked my interest in the firm a few years ago (see here and here). Josh Kopelman, founding partner, gave an interview recently in which he shared facts I didn’t know about First Round and explained some important concepts in VC.

Here are a few of my key takeaways from the interview:

• VC firms have grown from fewer than roughly 850 employing 1k–2k investors writing checks in 2004 to, today, over 10k funds employing over 20k investors writing checks.
• Venture firms, to attract larger pools of money into the VC asset class, are beginning to adopt the Blackstone asset management firm model. Blackstone is playing a scale game that focuses on cash-on-cash returns. Traditional venture capital has focused on alpha, which provides a superior internal rate of return (IRR, a measurement of compounding rate of return). Blackstone’s model is to provide higher cash dollar returns, as its dollars under management are massive, but lower-percentage returns that are steadier.
• The Venture Arrogance Score is a calculation Josh runs that looks at two things: how big the fund is and what percentage of a company the fund owns when the company exits. He said a hypothetical $7 billion venture fund that aims to own 10% of a company when it exits would need to capture roughly 50% of the dollars that venture capital realizes at exit during the three-year period when the fund is making investments. No firm has ever captured more than 10% of the total venture capital dollars realized from companies exiting.  He details the math in this section of the interview. He doesn’t say this, but assuming that a single firm can get 50% of the total exit value created by all founders in the U.S. when history says the very best get less than 10% is arrogant. The math doesn’t math on generating superior returns for massive venture funds.
• First Round aims to make 70 to 80 investments from each fund and own 12%–15% of a company initially. It targets 8%–9% ownership after dilution when a company exits. The firm takes Series A pro rata.
• First Round has been in business 20 years and made 90% of its profits in a 36-month period. VC makes its money by holding investments until the market is at the irrational disequilibrium or “extreme f*ing greed” part of the cycle. Bill Gurley agrees with this view (see here).
• A VC investor who started in 1980 and retired in 2000 made 17% of his profits in the first 17 years (1% per year). He made 83% of his profits in the last, 1997–2000 period.
• Multiple expansion in irrational disequilibrium and “extreme f*ing greed” is how VC returns are maximized.
• First Round is run like a company, not an investment firm. The firm has a CEO-type partner who doesn’t invest. He focuses on strategic planning, running experiments, iterating and learning, and offering products and services that add value to founders.
• First Round’s partners make their money from carry (profit sharing), not management fees.
• For the first seven years, First Round spent more on staff and products and services for founders than it took in from management fees. It invested ahead of planned growth. The partners had to contribute almost $8 million from their own pockets to fund the management company during this period.
• First Round still spends most of its management fees and has a staff of approximately 50 people.
• Value in venture capital firms is created by how they make decisions. Yet, many firms don’t capture their decision-making process so decisions can be analyzed and learned from later.
• Many venture capital firms are run poorly because founding investors don’t think of the firms as companies creating products or offering services to customers.
• First Round created a 36-question rubric that each investor answers before the partners discuss a potential investment. They want to capture each partner’s independent thinking before groupthink has a chance to creep in. This creates the fabric for debates about investments and game tapes to be reviewed later. Their goal is to capture the root of their investment decisions.

Those are my big takeaways from Josh’s interview, but he discusses a lot more. If you’re interested, check out the entire interview here.

One of my friends told me today about an interesting start-up. It’s called Reducto, and it’s a service that turns “unstructured documents into useful insights.” The team just raised $24 million from several venture capital firms to fund its growth.

During my testing for my book project, I learned that it’s hard to feed large amounts of unstructured text to large language models, and finding insights was challenging. The responses were inconsistent or useless.

I’m curious to play with Reducto’s free playground to see how its platform addresses this problem.

This week there was lots of discussion in financial media around the CoreWeave IPO. CoreWeave provides cloud-based GPUs to AI developers. The IPO was completed today after the number of shares being sold in the IPO was reduced from 49 million to 37.5 million and the share price was lowered to $40 from the planned $47 to $55. (see here)I haven’t kept close tabs on the IPO market since my last update in October 2024 (see here), so I took a look today. Here are the updated IPO stats through March 28, 2025:

• 2025: 73

For comparison, here are prior years’ IPO stats:

• 2024: 225
• 2023: 154
• 2022: 181
• 2021: 1,035
• 2020: 480
• 2019: 232

IPO activity picked up in 2024. We were pretty much back to the 2019 level. COVID and ZIRP contributed to the 2021 IPO explosion (see here). When interest rates began rising sharply in 2022, we saw an implosion of IPO activity in 2022 and 2023.

Time will tell how receptive the market is to CoreWeave. It took almost a year before public-market investors were interested in buying technology companies that IPOed in 2023 and 2024, such as Reddit, Instacart, and Klaviyo.

CoreWeave has seen explosive growth in the last year or so because of soaring AI demand (OpenAI is one of its biggest customers). I’m sure venture capitalists and technology entrepreneurs are watching to see how receptive public-market investors are to buying the company’s shares.

I’m curious to see how CoreWeave performs and whether we’ll see more technology companies going public via IPOs in 2025.

If you want to see the latest or historical IPO stats, try here (where I get my IPO data).

Yesterday, I shared what I learned about how much of the company each Netflix cofounder owned (see here). I also learned from reading Netflix’s S-1 document that VC firm Technology Crossover Ventures (TCV) owned roughly 43% before the IPO and roughly 34% after it. I learned that TCV partner and cofounder Jay C. Hoag has been a Netflix board member since 1999 (see here). Jay and TCV invested before the IPO, so they’ve seen the company go from a promising start-up worth tens of millions to a global, publicly traded company worth over $400 billion.

I view investors who found investment firms as entrepreneurs, so I was curious to learn more about Jay and TCV. I’m early in my research, but I found Jay’s interview (listen here) from 2021 on the Invest Like the Best podcast. A few things I found interesting:

• Netflix stock traded down 15–20% after the 2002 IPO and stayed down for about six months.
• TCV was founded as a private and public (i.e., “crossover”) investor. This means that it invests in private technology companies (i.e., start-ups) and technology companies traded publicly on the stock exchanges.
• In 2011, TCV made a PIPE investment in Netflix after the stock had declined 70%. The stock traded down further after the PIPE investment, which was for $400 million, with T. Rowe Price participating, too. More details are here and here.  
• “By being a private investor, it made us better public market investors” and “By being a public market investor, it made us better private investors.”
• “The capital allocation exercise is to look across the technology landscape, take advantage of all the research and knowledge that we have, and look for the best investment . . . and not be bucketed by either private or public.”

Jay and TCV also invested in Zillow, Peloton, Facebook, Airbnb, Tripadvisor, Spotify, and many more wildly successful technology companies. I’m excited to learn more about Hoad and what led to his outsize success.